HPE ProLiant DL Servers Room for Improvement

They are pretty solid servers, but, just like all servers, they become obsolete after some time. They can maybe provide a console to monitor the health of the servers. There should be some kind of console to which you can log in to remotely check on the health of a server, even when the server is off. The servers that we have are only scalable to some extent. They have got a limited amount of hard drive that you can insert. Their scalability should be improved. View full review »

I would like to see more of a hard drive base. IT keeps on changing the versions of their products. There have historically been great differences in time than when the G server, the Gen8, nine, and now 10 generations of DL ProLiant server have been available, the time differences are much less. Specifically for G9, G10 even less than one year, now there is no way people like us will keep on upgrading servers without having proper ROI. HPE needs to allow us to replace the CTUs of a higher generation. View full review »

The solution is pretty complete, for what I have seen over the past three years. I can't recall if I've felt that any features were lacking within that time. The technical support is pretty good, however, they could be a bit faster and more responsive. View full review »

In DL 500 systems, the flow of air is not good enough, and some components get overheated. IBM systems have better airflow and scalability. We have a data center that has limited physical space. Therefore, we need to maximize the processing or compute systems that we use. In HP servers, such as DL 500, there are only four processors, whereas IBM servers, such as SR 916, have eight processors. We don't get any support from HP because of our geographical location. We solve all problems ourselves by doing research on the internet. It would be good to get HP support. View full review »

The technical support could be a little faster. View full review »

Sometimes, there are connectivity issues and the server is not able to connect to our SAN. One example is when we reboot from SAN storage, we face issues such as not being able to detect the SAN port. After we installed two new physical hard disks, that issue went away. It should be more stable. View full review »

It is too expensive. Its price should be improved. The system admin interface should have better visibility while troubleshooting a problem, even when the problem is coming from the application. View full review »

They can increase the controller cache. Currently, it has a controller cache of up to 4 GB. The RAID controller card comes with a maximum of 4 GB cache in HPE servers, whereas it comes with a maximum of 8 GB cache in Dell servers. They can also improve the port size. HP provides a 25 GB port on the server, whereas both Dell and Cisco provide a 100 GB port. View full review »

The price of this solution should be lowered to make it more competitive. View full review »

They should continue to maintain the stability that is there. View full review »

I honestly can't think of any areas for improvement. View full review »

We found that the extensions could be improved and the price could be a little lower. View full review »

Configurations very simplified. The technical support and training process Very good. View full review »